I don't think I've ever seen someone push a lynch without voting for the proposed lynchee, who hasn't been scum. If you want someone lynched, the only reason not to vote them is so your name doesn't turn up on the vote count when they turn out to be pro-town.?YouYou? wrote:It doesn't look like there's any claiming or voting strategy that helps us. So let's lynch ?Nameless One? and BrianMcQueso and see where that gets us.
?Charlie? wrote:BrianMcQueso wrote:vote: ?YouYou?I know my ideas have been a bit confusing, and maybe even voteworthy, but I don't think it's worth lynching me over. Your last post makes it seem like you're eager to start a real early bandwagon over something so little. There's been one vote on me for a real reason and one randomly. If you think I'm worth lynching, maybe you should vote me instead of trying to stir up support.Well, I think it's quite scummy ?YouYou?'s post for giving no reason behind the choice of those two names, but you can't really blame him for not putting his vote where his mouth is: he can't vote twice and his vote is on ?Namelessone?.Flying Dutchman wrote:Vote: ?YouYou?
Trying to get someone lynched without voting yourself is a standard mafia tactic, since not being on the bandwagon will appear innocent if the person is lynched and turns out innocent.
?Allstar? wrote:Seconded. We've got 3 pages now to use to find scum instead of fancy-pants schemes.Dranko20 wrote:I feel I should say speculating this early can be bad.
I'm happy with my vote on ?Rainbow Brite? - 1 post, no content, just jumped on bandwagon.
i dont think we should accept that as a reason for inactivity. people will just have to kick their butts into gear.BrianMcQueso wrote:I thought we expected the secondary accounts to be less active because they're a pain in the ass to check. I can't post under mine right after I post on this one because it'll be friggin obvious.
I agree, lurking secondary accounts are a potential danger and we should accept no excuses. MoS: you are quite right to pick me up on this (it was just laziness) and I'm gonna try harder. Sorry.?Rainbow Brite? wrote:i dont think we should accept that as a reason for inactivity. people will just have to kick their butts into gear.BrianMcQueso wrote:I thought we expected the secondary accounts to be less active because they're a pain in the ass to check. I can't post under mine right after I post on this one because it'll be friggin obvious.
Does this mean we'll need 11 votes to lynch someone, end then once more before day ends? Or is it two times 6 votes?top post wrote:Each day there will be two lynches, they can both be from the same group if you guys wish. They will still require the majority of votes.
Think of it like this: When your primary account dies, you don't want to go to a great big deal of hassle to get your secondary account into the game halfway through. There's already one person who only has a secondary left. If people don't seriously use their secondaries they will be forced to lurk or stand out from the crowd by being the only secondary posting (making them very easy targets for scum).one thing i hate about secondary accounts is that you have to come up with new things to say for them. if you have an opinion, you would probably post it under your regular account. you run out of creative, insightful things to post about which leaves you with posts like this one that do not help really progress the game along.
I really hope it's 11 two times, because otherwise, assuming a 3-person mafia, scum can lynch somebody with their own votes and that would probably mean that the game is over before it even starts.mepmuff wrote:Does this mean we'll need 11 votes to lynch someone, end then once more before day ends? Or is it two times 6 votes?top post wrote:Each day there will be two lynches, they can both be from the same group if you guys wish. They will still require the majority of votes.
Two consecutive lynches, each of which require a majority.?Charlie? wrote:I really hope it's 11 two times, because otherwise, assuming a 3-person mafia, scum can lynch somebody with their own votes and that would probably mean that the game is over before it even starts.mepmuff wrote:Does this mean we'll need 11 votes to lynch someone, end then once more before day ends? Or is it two times 6 votes?top post wrote:Each day there will be two lynches, they can both be from the same group if you guys wish. They will still require the majority of votes.
The impression I get is that there are two "separate" Mafias, one composed of, say, Meme, mathcam and Talitha, and the other of ?Meme?, ?mathcam? and ?Talitha?. Once all the normal or ?? Mafia are dead, then, their kill is gone.?Charlie? wrote:I am also wondering -but this won't get an answer by the mod- since it seems that mafia has two nightkills, whether it will be like that for all the game or if it will go down to one after a certain number of them has died. Since the town has two lynches everyday, simmetry would suggest the former of the two, and that's pretty scary.
Your guess is as good as mine....... I think this is probably true, and this may be very important. With 2 scum kills each night we won't survive for long..... However, earlier we discussed getting rid of all ?? accounts, and I still think that's a bad idea..... I'll give this some additional thought.Seol wrote:The impression I get is that there are two "separate" Mafias, one composed of, say, Meme, mathcam and Talitha, and the other of ?Meme?, ?mathcam? and ?Talitha?. Once all the normal or ?? Mafia are dead, then, their kill is gone.
We wanted your reasons for saying "let's lynch X" so early on day 1. Seemed a little... over-eager, to say the least.?YouYou? wrote:Why are people waiting for me? Because I want to lynch ?Nameless One? and Brian McQueso?
See, there's a reason. Strikes me as a really poor one, but it's a reason at least. Can you tell us what was scummy about it? I'd rather lynch people for scummy behaviour than not having a total understanding of this new variant nobody's ever played before.?YouYou? wrote:Let's wait on BrianMcQueso and lynch ?Nameless One? then. Though I think Brian's discussion of mass claim wasn't very well thought out, I was mostly trying to think of a normal account that I didn't really like all that much.
Well, that's one way of spinning his postulation there's no townies. So he's not a PJV. How on earth does that justify lynching him? I mean, how is it even scummy??YouYou? wrote:Now, I'm somewhat more suspicious, since he has claimed either non-vanilla townie or scum. Maybe we should lynch him based on that.
You suggested lynching without giving a reason why. Speed is irrelevant, it was a random lynch you were asking for, near as dammit.?YouYou? wrote:I never suggested "speed-lynch," though.
I've worked out why mass claiming is bad. It's for the reasons Brian cited, except replace revelation on death with claiming. People will be bandwagonned to claims today, and if we've mass-claimed that's both halves of the role gone. People will have information roles which they'll want to claim, and if we've mass-claimed that's both halves of the role gone.?YouYou? wrote:I'm also still wondering if mass claim is a good idea. We'll probably figure out who some of us are anyway. Say that the scum really want to get ?Internet Stranger? out of the game. They've got a 2/7 chance of doing that during the night. We've got a 2/10 chance of doing that during the day. That's 28% vs. 20%. If we mass claim, we're on even ground, 100% and 100%.
So let's make it as difficult as possible for them.?YouYou? wrote:If we add in the fact that the scum (since they've got more heads together, and they've got fewer people to try to link together) are more likely to link two people, they're in way more control.
Well, not at this point. The only significant reason I can think of that we'd want to eliminate both halves of a role is if we have a reliable investigation result on them. The scum have a whole raft of reasons to get rid of both halves.?YouYou? wrote:If there is any reason for us to want to eliminate someone completely, we should go ahead and mass claim. That said, I don't think there's a reason for us to want to eliminate either Commodore Amazing or ?Internet Stranger? completely. They've got a much higher chance of being clear than anyone else.
Voting for ?Nameless One? seems to be a good way to get him to post more.Seol wrote:what was your reason for saying we should lynch ?Nameless One? as opposed to prodding him to post?
BrianMcQueso wrote:I know (well not know, but I'd bet serious money) there are no townies in this game. StrykkerVerde abhors putting basic townsfolk in his games.
Does it sound scummy if I rephrase it as "Hey, guys. Tell me your roles, please, thanks." or "Oh, crap, forgot to tell my scum buds not to claim vanilla townie, better do that?" It's probably the scummiest thing anyone has said so far with regard to the set-up. You should realize this.Seol wrote:How does that justify lynching him? I mean, how is it even scummy??YouYou? wrote:[Brian] has claimed either non-vanilla townie or scum. Maybe we should lynch him based on that.
There were already reasons given for voting for Brian and ?Nameless One? by others. It was not random. I've never seen Seol bark up the wrong tree so much before. Having a reputation for being a good town player must suck when you're in the Mafia.Seol wrote:You suggested lynching without giving a reason why... it was a random lynch you were asking for...?YouYou? wrote:I never suggested "speed-lynch," though.
I guess the only way we can win is if we've got some good roles left. Let's assume we do, and not mass-claim.Seol wrote:People will be bandwagonned to claims today, and if we've mass-claimed that's both halves of the role gone.
When we lynch you, we're going to want to lynch the other half too.Seol wrote:Why are we talking about mass claim day 1 anyway?
That makes one of us. I hope you're Seol.???? wrote:Seol is making an awful lot of sense to me.
